Talk:Armenian-Azerbaijani War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] WTF
there was no Azerbaijan when hostilities ended
- Wrong, read the article again. Azerbaijan won because it retained control of both Karabakh and Nahichivan. It became part of USSR later in 1922.
- It was NOT ADR. Azeri and Soviet counter-attack, May 1920
After having gained firm control of Azerbaijan, the Soviet forces moved on to reclaim the Armenian-occupied areas in the west for the Azerbaijan SSR. The Azeri army was reorganized along Soviet lines and reequipped with Russian weapons.--Eupator 03:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Huh? I don't understand what you are saying. It doesn't matter whether the country was called ADR or ASSR, it is still Azerbaijan. Changes reverted, please explain yourself better - Kami888
[edit] Part of Russian Civil War?
I need advice - can the conflict be seen as part of Russian Civil War, or is it something completely separate? - Kami888
- I strongly doubt this can be taken as a separate war: first of all no historical book or encyclopedia ever refers to these events like that. See Britannica or Encarta for example. In the period of 1917 to 1921 there were Armenians, Azerbaijanis (known as Tartars or simply "Muslims" back then), Russians (Bolshevists, White army soldiers, Kossaks, Menshevists), as well as Turkish and British troops involved in this chain of clashes, ethnic cleansings, uprisings. Not to say that the title "Armenian-Azeri" is totally unprofessional, it should be "Armenian-Azerbaijani..." Also, why is it named AA War of 1918 yet the chronology goes until 1921? Another thing: Azerbaijanis weren't the winning side: Azerbaijan eventually surrendered to Red Army, how can Azerbaijanis be the winners of that war? [Anonimous]
- The Azeris are on the winning side because they've got control of disputed territories - Naxhichivan and Karabakh. Azerbaijan gave up its sovereignty to Soviet Union later on, but that is not part of the conflict in question.
[edit] Grandmaster, it is not nice to delete informations
First of, the commander information seems to be accurate. Second, since the massacre of Armenians was much more reported and found in published works, I wonder why you have deleted that from the other editors edit, when the contrary, the reported massacre of Azeris is untouched. Also, you shall explain me why Nakhichevan planed to be part of the Armenian republic is according to Armenian sources, when it was on the middle, between 'Ottoman Armenia' and 'Russian Armenia', with it being considered as part of Russian Armenia. Again, I don't know what the hell you will answer, but I take once again the opportunity to say, that I do not have free times in my handes to be engaged in any disputes involving some ultranationalists. Just saying that so that you do not expect any answers from me. I just had a few minutes and saw what was missing in that article and what was reverted. Fad (ix) 16:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- First, I did not write this article. Second, I asked for the information to be supported by reliable sources (not nkr.am or the likes). As long as information is supported by sources, there should be no problems. Grandmaster 06:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Stop being disrespectful. You already witnessed when I started quoting from primary sources the massacres preparation and the subsequent massacre of Armenians from German records in Baku, while you never did the same with the massacre of Azeris. You have deleted an information which you knew was already documented, while I have seen you defending edits by Baku87, which unlike this were never substanciated. Also, by always dissociating yourself like this claiming you haven't written the article, regardless of your close involvement, you are insulting other editors intelligence. This article [1] for example, an article which you are very active in, contains in its last section informations and wordings which you were rutlessly fighting for, and again picture you as doing things without concerns of other editors opinion. (in cases, you pretend not understanding what I mean, and play the innocence card. Transfered, remained, all wordings which were discussed for months in the Karabakh article.) By those words, I rest my case, in such situations, I'd normally be cynical toward you, but I won't get in your way, so you may continue thinking that Wikipedia is your battleground, and Armenians your enemy. Fad (ix) 17:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- This talk page is for discussion of edits, and not personal beef with other users. If you have enough time to write lengthy posts on talk pages, you should have enough time to add the information you want to the article citing reliable sources. I’m not going to respond to any personal accusations and will seek an admin intervention if you continue to harass me. Grandmaster 08:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK! I see, so I guess the issues above will not be addressed, rather irrelevency, this from someone who is giving lessons on what should be on that talkpage. Fad (ix) 21:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to know where this discussion is going, as it's not supposed to be about Grandmaster... Khoikhoi 02:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- But sorry, I thought that while I was away, Grandmaster would have changed, but was I thinking?(sorry for the later sarcasm) This is indeed about the article and Grandmasters claim of not proper sourcing to delete, when he indeed knows that not only was the material he has deleted souced, but much more sourced than his 'injectative' (for the lack of better wording) materials. The sourcing was already done, and this, Grandmaster himself beared witness of, we are not toys here having to do the durty loundery when it has already been done, since Grandmaster happens to pretend amnesia. No one here has Grandmasters free time for this sort of game. Fad (ix) 20:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to know where this discussion is going, as it's not supposed to be about Grandmaster... Khoikhoi 02:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK! I see, so I guess the issues above will not be addressed, rather irrelevency, this from someone who is giving lessons on what should be on that talkpage. Fad (ix) 21:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- This talk page is for discussion of edits, and not personal beef with other users. If you have enough time to write lengthy posts on talk pages, you should have enough time to add the information you want to the article citing reliable sources. I’m not going to respond to any personal accusations and will seek an admin intervention if you continue to harass me. Grandmaster 08:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Azerbaijani victory
Wheres proof for this? some references please, not to mention it was Armenian before, [2] there was also Bolshevik before. Artaxiad 23:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand your objection, if you read the article, in particular the part about "Azeri and Soviet counter-attack, May 1920" it is quite evident that this war was won by the Azerbaijani side.
The Russian and Azeri offensive started in early June and resulted in quick defeat of Armenian forces. On June 5 the Armenian forces were expelled from Shusha. In early July Armenians withdrew from Tatev and suffered several defeats in Kazakh-Shamshadin area. On 28 July the Soviet forces and their Turkish allies staged an assault on Nakhichevan City, expelling Armenian forces and establishing a joint Russian/Azeri/Turkish occupation of the province. In early August, Armenian troops made one more attempt to take over Nakhichevan but were defeated at Shakh-Takhty by joint Soviet-Turkish corps. Thus, the Azerbaijan SSR was fully restored to the borders of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic prior to Armenian invasion.On August 10 1920, the cease-fire agreement was signed in Yerevan between Soviet and Armenian forces, ending the hostilities and forcing Armenia to recognize the Azeri control of Karabakh and temporary independence of Nakhichevan.
I don't think there is any doubt. If it please you more you can write "Azerbaijani and Russian victory" or "Armenian defeat", but the result doesn't change. (Limonlimone 00:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC))
- Okay but wheres the reference for this? please don't revert if there isn't anything provided. Artaxiad 00:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there are a lot of sources that can confirm you this version, for example the book cited at the end of the article as well as the links. In general we can divide this conflict into two parts, the first part was more favorable to Armenian side while the second and last part that was completly favorable to Azerbaijani side. In fact to be more precise I wrote "Azerbaijan SSR victory" to underline the fact that the war was won by Soviet Azerbaijan and not by ADR. In anycase it doesn't change much, during ADR the government was led by Musavatists, during SSR by the Communists, but we are still talking about Azerbaijan. If tomorrow the France government change colour that country is still named France. (Limonlimone 00:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC))
- OKAY, give the source to the exact paragraph your reverts don't seem to impress me YOU shouldn't change anything if you do not have sources confirming this exactly you rather have me remove content or add the citation tag? your not helping at all now reference this material or do not revert its not my job to scroll down to the links, if your going to go on with this go request deletion for citation tags. Artaxiad 02:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)